F1LT3R
Broken-in Plebe
Boo!
Posts: 74
|
Post by F1LT3R on Oct 21, 2004 4:28:57 GMT -5
What is materialism? Materialism is the idea that "All things that exist are matter." Unfortunatly for cosmic evolutionists, they are trying to proove ideas that are inobservable.
How did matter come into existence? If we are only matter, then we can never observe the beginnings of matter as they are beyond our very existence. If we were only material beings, then we could only ever observe this universe "once it's already begun!"
|
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Oct 22, 2004 6:36:35 GMT -5
Can you observe this universe before it began?
|
|
F1LT3R
Broken-in Plebe
Boo!
Posts: 74
|
Post by F1LT3R on Oct 22, 2004 12:57:52 GMT -5
Hey Vertigo,
I can certainly see how you have come to that conclusion from what I have said; but that wasn't what I was pointing out.
No, I do not claim to be able to see anything previous to my life, let alone before the existence of materialism. However I can see the effects of the past imprinted on the materials of today.
My point was more this:
If we suggest that "material is all that exists", then we are making a claim to omniscience; for to make the statement "material is all that exists" we are infereing that we have been everywhere and seen everything. Have you been everywhere and seen everything? I know I have not.
Therefore; until I can be everywhere at once and know all things, then I can never in my right mind, claim "matter is all that exists". Effectively, to claim that, you would be claiming "I am God."
|
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Oct 22, 2004 13:29:50 GMT -5
You make a mistake. Knowledge is not certain. Do you know you will draw your next breath successfully?
Knowledge doesn't lead to truth. Knowing something doesn't make it true.
|
|
F1LT3R
Broken-in Plebe
Boo!
Posts: 74
|
Post by F1LT3R on Oct 22, 2004 13:40:44 GMT -5
You make a mistake. Knowledge is not certain. Do you know you will draw your next breath successfully? Knowledge doesn't lead to truth. Knowing something doesn't make it true. Are you saying that you can 'know' things that arn't true? |
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Oct 22, 2004 15:36:53 GMT -5
I am saying that sometimes the truth doesn't matter. Let's say that I tell you that my name is Bob. Now you know my name. But is my name really Bob? Maybe I lied.
There is always doubt, but if the doubt is small enough we call it knowledge. Often what we know turns out to be wrong. "I know he didn't do it, he wasn't like that." How many times have you heard that?
So to say that material is all that exists is to say that the doubt is miniscule. You don't need to be God to have knowledge.
I know the sky is blue. But is it blue? From space it doesn't look blue. Knowledge is relational. It is always from some frame of reference.
Do you know where Finland is? Have you ever been there? Do you only truly know where Finland is once you have been there?
|
|
|
|
Post by GodRocks on Dec 21, 2004 12:32:34 GMT -5
We have laws in the universe you know... Like how 1+1 is 2. Think of a world where 1+1 equals 3. You probably can't because we learn things by expirience. Think of a man that was born without sight. Even though everyone insists there is sight and color should he believe it? He probably will, but have no knowledge of vision. At the same time it is also logical to disbelieve everyone as you haven't experienced vision yet, and for all you know there isn't sight. What I'm trying to say is we can't think we know everything because there are a lot of things we can't even dream of comprehending (God being one example). I think a lot of people here look at God with human eyes, but like the blind man you have no knowledge of what reality accually is and think you've got it all figured out.
|
|
ToxicMoon
Seasoned Citizen
Delusional One
Posts: 129
|
Post by ToxicMoon on Dec 21, 2004 12:43:34 GMT -5
No one can claim to have it all figured out. No one truly knows what is real.
It seems to me you are claiming you have it all figured out. To have it all figured out, you must have absolute knowledge of everything and nothing.
Do you have absolute knowledge?
(If this is not what you are implying, please clarify.)
|
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Dec 21, 2004 13:36:03 GMT -5
We have laws in the universe you know... Like how 1+1 is 2. Think of a world where 1+1 equals 3. Mathematics is a man-made construct and we determine it's properties and rules. I've learned about many things I have not experienced. I think you're confused on what knowledge and beliefs are as well as beliefs in respect to empirical science and the religious connotation of the term. Who's claiming to know everything? I think your line of argumentation may be best directed at the strong atheists...I would not fall into that category. |
|
|
|
Post by Hilly on Dec 21, 2004 13:54:42 GMT -5
Think of a man that was born without sight. Even though everyone insists there is sight and color should he believe it? He probably will, but have no knowledge of vision. At the same time it is also logical to disbelieve everyone as you haven't experienced vision yet, and for all you know there isn't sight. It would hardly be "logical" for this blind man to "disbelieve everyone" about whether there is such a thing as sight, just because he has never seen. There are plenty of signs that would demonstrate to him sight exists for others. The fact that he may need assistance to get around without bumping into things, and the majority of the populace do not require such assistance would be one. |
|
|
|
Post by Theodore Doxford on Dec 21, 2004 14:42:11 GMT -5
pseudo babble is gaining ground with the religious...
I pity the people of the US if the creationist/pseudo scientists and ID'ers aren't confronted.
COME on YOU Americans,take the fight to the Pseudo-babblers...attack the stupid ideas that these maniacs put forward
I am going back into my box now.
|
|
Filter
Seasoned Citizen
An opposing thumb has made all the difference!!
Posts: 221
|
Post by Filter on Dec 21, 2004 16:44:53 GMT -5
Think of a man that was born without sight. Even though everyone insists there is sight and color should he believe it? If not precisely, vision, or at least the benefits of vision, can easily be explained to a blind person. For example, a person with sight can drive a blind person accross town in a fraction of the time they could walk, avoiding obstacles and collisions that would surely befall the blind person at the rate a car travels. The blind person need not have the same interpretation of color to appreciate that his/her driver used additional senses that they were lacking. We can appreciate that we do not have all the answers. In fact as our knowledge increases, we become aware of even more questions without answers - does that make us less intellegent than our ancestors? Hardly. In the meantime, until all is settled, we do not need to latch onto a mythology simply because "we do not know". |
|
|
|
Post by GodRocks on Dec 22, 2004 20:18:42 GMT -5
Ok maybe that wasn't the best example as I intended it to have little variables. But the blind man cannot begin to imagine what sight is. Imagine you as the blind man; then try to imagine what sight is without accually seeing.
|
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Dec 22, 2004 22:33:44 GMT -5
Ok maybe that wasn't the best example as I intended it to have little variables. But the blind man cannot begin to imagine what sight is. Imagine you as the blind man; then try to imagine what sight is without accually seeing. I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make. Also, what type of blindness? If someone suffers from cortical blindness the eyes themselves still work and a phenomena known as blindsight keeps that person oriented in space since different brain regions govern that ability. |
|
Filter
Seasoned Citizen
An opposing thumb has made all the difference!!
Posts: 221
|
Post by Filter on Dec 23, 2004 12:47:16 GMT -5
Ok maybe that wasn't the best example as I intended it to have little variables. But the blind man cannot begin to imagine what sight is. Imagine you as the blind man; then try to imagine what sight is without accually seeing. Actually it is a good example. One does not need to fully grasp something unknown to them in order to appreciate that others may experience it. I do not have perfect pitch (musical term, not to imply an absolute "perfect"), nor can I know exactly the feeling of what it is to have it, but I do not doubt that others have it - they have shown me and I have measured it to relevant accuracy. If in fact there were a series of controlled events that could be altered by prayer or God's interaction, then even the most skeptical person would be enticed to further investigate. Understanding it is not the first step to acknowledging something. I don't doubt your faith, I just doubt the underlying premise of that faith. Your belief and all the experiences that come out of that belief are one thing; transfering that to independent action is another. |
|
